VATupdate

Share this post on

ECJ C-537/22 (Global Ink Trade) – Judgment – Deduction of VAT in case of a missing additional evidence/fictitious transactions

On January 11, 2024, the ECJ issued its decision in the case C-537/22 (Global Ink Trade).

Context: Principle of the primacy of EU law – Effective judicial protection – Tax evasion – VAT Directive – Principle of fiscal neutrality – Scope of the taxable person’s general obligation to exercise scrutiny – Due diligence – Objective evidence

Action for judicial review brought against a decision of the national tax authority refusing the right to deduct VAT on the basis that that authority  required, in connection with invoices, evidence additional to that stipulated by EU law and, in the absence of such evidence, classified the  transactions concerned as fictitious.


Article in the EU VAT Directive

Article 167, 168(a) and 178(a) in the EU VAT Directive 2006/112/EC.

Article 167 (Deduction of VAT)
A right of deduction shall arise at the time the deductible tax becomes chargeable.

Article 168
In so far as the goods and services are used for the purposes of the taxed transactions of a taxable person, the taxable person shall be entitled, in the Member State in which he carries out these transactions, to deduct the following from the VAT which he is liable to pay:
(a) the VAT due or paid in that Member State in respect of supplies to him of goods or services, carried out or to be carried out by another taxable person;

Article 178
In order to exercise the right of deduction, a taxable person must meet the following conditions:
(a) for the purposes of deductions pursuant to Article 168(a), in respect of the supply of goods or services, he must hold an invoice drawn up in accordance with Sections 3 to 6 of Chapter 3 of Title XI;

 


Facts

  • The main business of the applicant, Global Ink Trade Kft., is as a wholesale trade intermediary. During the period from July 2012 to June 2013,  which forms the subject of the main proceedings, the applicant purchased mainly office supplies and ink cartridges. Its main supplier was Office Builder Kft., from which it received 68 invoices during that period.
  • The tax authority determined that Office Builder Kft. was not engaged in any economic activity, did not have a principal place of business or any branches, did not have the material and personal attributes necessary to carry on an economic activity, had not engaged any employees and had not discharged its tax obligations. The company director, who was questioned in a penal establishment, stated that he did not perform any role in that company, which did not conclude contracts or issue invoices. As a result, the tax authority determined that the financial transactions  reflected on the invoices sent to the applicant had not in fact taken place between the parties and that Office Builder Kft. operated exclusively as an intermediate undertaking.
  • The tax authority questioned the applicant’s director, who explained, with respect to the scrutiny of suppliers, that, in the case of potential  business partners (and Office Builder Kft., too, therefore), administrative checks (including on the data contained in the commercial register)  and material checks (whether any orders have actually been placed) were carried out, and that, on the basis of those checks, he would decide  whether a contract was to be concluded. The applicant’s director and the director of Office Builder Kft. concluded the contract in person but maintained day-to-day contact by e-mail and did not meet face to face.
  • In its assessment of the evidence obtained, the tax authority noted that the statements made by the directors of the two undertakings were  contradictory from the point of view of their content and, on the basis of those contradictions, considered it proved beyond any doubt that the  transactions reflected on the invoices had not taken place as certified by those invoices with respect to their form and substance.
  • According to the tax authority’s conclusions, the issuer of the invoice was not engaged in any genuine economic activity but merely issued  invoices the content of which was unreliable, its function, as an intermediate undertaking, therefore being confined to creating for the benefit of the applicant input tax on goods purchased within the European Union, with a view to enabling the applicant to effect the improper recovery of VAT on ostensibly national transactions. The tax authority did not consider the invoices received by the applicant to be reliable, because the company which had issued them did not recognise them and even expressly denied having issued them, and for that reason refused to grant the
    applicant the right to deduct the VAT in question.
  • The first-tier tax authority declared there to be a tax difference payable by the applicant in the amount of HUF 348876000 by way of VAT for the period from July 2012 to June 2013, of which HUF 348773000 was considered to constitute a ‘tax shortfall’. The tax authority imposed a fine for that shortfall and applied a late-payment surcharge.
  • The second-tier tax authority declared that the applicant had not demonstrated any conduct such as to show that its activity was not simply  confined to the mere receipt of invoices meeting the formal requirements laid down, which is to say that it concluded that the applicant had not  acted with due diligence in the course of trade. For that reason, the second-tier tax authority upheld the decision given by the first-tier  authority.
  • The applicant brought an action for judicial review against that decision before the Fővárosi Törvényszék (Budapest High Court).

Questions

  • 1) Does the fact that a court in a Member State, adjudicating at last instance, interprets a decision of the Court of Justice (adopted in the form of an order in response to a request for a preliminary ruling specifically concerned with the case-law developed by the self-same court adjudicating at last instance) as meaning that there is nothing in that decision which has or is likely to have the effect of overturning earlier decisions of the  Court of Justice or bringing about a change in the previous national case-law developed by the court adjudicating at last instance, constitute an infringement of the principle of the primacy of EU law and of the right to effective judicial protection guaranteed in Article 47 of the Charter of
    Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’)?
  • 2) Must the principle of the primacy of EU law and the right to effective judicial protection guaranteed in Article 47 of the Charter be  nterpreted as meaning that the principle of the primacy of decisions of the Court of Justice applies even in the case where a court in a Member State,  adjudicating at last instance, also relies on [the] earlier judgments [of the Court of Justice] as precedent? Is a different answer conceivable, in  the light of Article 99 of the Rules of Procedures of the Court of Justice, where the decision of the Court of Justice takes the form of an order?
  • 3) Within the framework of the taxable person’s general obligation to exercise scrutiny, irrespective of the performance and nature of the  economic  transaction shown on the invoices concerned, and regard being had to Articles 167, 168(a) and 178(a) of Council Directive  2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (‘the VAT Directive’) and to the principles of legal certainty and  fiscal neutrality, may the taxable person be required, as a condition of benefiting from the right to deduct VAT ― and notwithstanding the  absence of a legislative provision to this effect in the Member State concerned ―, to maintain contact in person with the issuer of the invoice or  to contact his supplier only at the officially communicated e-mail address? May these circumstances be regarded as revealing a failure,  demonstrated by objective facts, to exercise the due diligence to be expected of the taxable person, account being taken of the fact that those  circumstances did not yet exist at the time when the taxable person carried out the relevant checks before entering into the business  relationship in question, but are features of the existing business relationship between the parties?
  • 4) Are a legal interpretation and a practice developed in a Member State, whereby a taxable person who has an invoice in conformity with the  VAT Directive is refused the benefit of the right to deduct VAT on the ground that he has not acted with due diligence in the course of trade  because he has failed to demonstrate conduct such as to support the determination that his activity was not simply confined to the mere receipt  of invoices meeting the formal requirements laid down, consistent with the aforementioned articles of the VAT Directive, with the principle of  fiscal neutrality and, above all, with the case-law of the Court of Justice ― which, when interpreting those provisions, places the burden of proof  on the tax authority ―, even in the case where the taxable person has enclosed all documentation relating to the transactions at issue and  the tax authority has rejected other offers to furnish evidence made by the taxable person during the tax proceedings?
  • 5) In the light of the aforementioned articles of the VAT Directive and the fundamental principle of legal certainty, may the finding, reached in connection with due diligence, that the issuer of the invoice was not engaged in any economic activity at all, constitute an objective fact, in the  case where the tax authority takes the view that there has been a failure to demonstrate the actual performance (and, therefore, the genuine  existence) of an economic transaction ― as documented by means of invoices, contracts and other supporting accounting documentation, and  by correspondence, and as confirmed by the statements of the warehousing undertaking and the taxable person’s director and employee ―, and  bases that view exclusively on the statement of the supplier undertaking’s director denying the existence of that transaction, without taking into  account the circumstances in which that statement was made, the interests of the person making the statement or the fact that, according to the documents in the case file, that undertaking had been founded by the very person making the statement and, according to the information available, an agent was acting on its behalf?
  • 6) Must the provisions of the VAT Directive relating to the deduction of VAT be interpreted as meaning that, in the case where the tax authority discovers during the tax proceedings that the goods mentioned on the invoices concerned are of Community origin and that the taxable person  is the second member of a chain [of supplies], the configuration of that scenario ― given that goods of Community origin are exempt from VAT  and the first Hungarian purchaser is not therefore entitled to deduct VAT, only the second member of that chain being so entitled ― is an  objective fact sufficient in itself to demonstrate tax evasion, or must the tax authority, in that case, also show, on the basis of objective facts,  which member or members of that chain committed tax evasion, by what modus operandi it or they did so, and whether the taxable person was  or could have been aware of this through the exercise of due diligence?

AG Opinion

None


Decision 

1.       The principle of the primacy of Union law must be interpreted as requiring the national court, having exercised its power under Article 267 TFEU, to disregard the legal assessments of a higher national court if it considers that that those assessments are incompatible with EU law in the light of the interpretation of a provision of EU law made by the Court in the form of a judgment or reasoned order within the meaning of Article 99 of its Rules of Procedure. However, that principle does not preclude national legislation which merely requires national lower courts to give reasons for any deviation from those assessments.

2.       Articles 167, 168(a) and 178(a) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, in conjunction with the principles of fiscal neutrality and legal certainty, are no longer applicable to be interpreted as not precluding a practice whereby the tax administration denies a taxable person the right to deduct VAT on the acquisition of goods supplied to him on the ground that invoices for those purchases are due to circumstances demonstrating a lack of care attributable to that taxpayer, are not credible, whereby these circumstances are generally assessed on the basis of the guidelines for taxpayers published by the tax administration, provided that

–         that practice and these guidelines do not call into question the duty of the tax administration to legally examine the objective circumstances which allow it to be concluded that that taxable person has committed VAT evasion or knew or should have known that the transaction in question was included in such tax evasion to sufficiently demonstrate

–         this practice and these guidelines do not burden this taxpayer with complex and comprehensive checks in relation to his contractual partner,

–         the requirements applied by the tax administration correspond to those of these guidelines and

–         the published guidelines for taxpayers were clearly formulated and their application was foreseeable for those affected.

3.       Directive 2006/112 must be interpreted as meaning that:

–         if the tax administration intends to deny a taxable person the right to deduct input VAT on the grounds that he or she has been involved in VAT evasion in the form of a VAT carousel, this is contradicted by the fact that the tax administration limits itself to establishing that this transaction is part of carousel invoicing is

–         it is the responsibility of the tax administration, on the one hand, to precisely determine the elements of tax evasion and to prove the fraudulent actions and, on the other hand, to prove that the taxpayer was actively involved in this tax evasion or that he knew or should have known that the tax evasion was the basis for the right to deduct The alleged purchase of goods or services was included in this evasion, but this does not necessarily mean that all actors involved in the tax evasion and their respective actions would have to be identified.


Summary


Source


Similar ECJ cases/ECJ Cases referred to in the Preliminary Ruling request


Reference to the case in the other EU MS


Newsletters


Join the Linkedin Group on ECJ VAT Cases, click HERE

Sponsors:

VAT news

Advertisements:

  • vatcomsult